- (1.) Heard Mr. Islam, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Mitra for the opposite party. This application under section 115 of tire Code Civil Procedure has been directed against an order passed by the learned Munsif in Title Suit No. 273 declaring that the suit abates under section 57B of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.
(2.) The preliminary point that requires consideration is whether this revisional application lies against that order. This question came up for consideration earlier before me in the case of Amritamay Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal and others, 80 CWN, 205 where it was held that the revisional application did not lie and was not maintainable because the order of abatement under section 57B amounted to a decree. Against that order an appeal ought to have been filed. Mr. Islam has relied upon a decision of Mr. Justice Chittatosh Mookherjee in the case of Siddeswar Biswas and another v. The Stare of West Bengal and another, reported in 1976 (1) CLJ 470 where it has been held that the order of abatement need not amount to a decree and a revisional application would lie. The decision of Mr. Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee was given, however, subsequent to the decision of the case of Amritamay Ghosh. In case of conflicting decisions of this nature, when two single judges differ, in my view, the earlier decision will prevail until it is set aside by a larger Bench. This view will appear in the case of Bagala Sundari Debi v. Prasanna Nath Mukherjee, reported in 21 CWN at page 375. On the question of court-fees there was a conflicting view of two Division Benches, and if was held that the earlier decision would prevail unless a decision is otherwise made by a larger Bench. In this view of the matter, I hold that the instant application in revision is not maintainable and the same is rejected.
(3.) I, therefore, reject this application and discharge the Rule. There will be no order as to costs.;